ACFD Challenge II Revisited after 15 ... - bombs-r-us.com
Transcript of ACFD Challenge II Revisited after 15 ... - bombs-r-us.com
P a g e | 1
8th ANKARA INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE CONFERENCE AIAC-2015-022 10-12 September 2015 - METU, Ankara TURKEY
ACFD Challenge II Revisited after 15 Years
M.G. Tutty and G. Akroyd, RAAF, Canberra and Adelaide, Australia
A. Cenko, Bombs-R-Us.com, Huntingdon Valley, PA, US
ABSTRACT
The Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics (ACFD) program was a US Department of
Defense sponsored tri-service effort to insert CFD into the aircraft stores separation/certification
process. ACFD sponsored two American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conferences
to determine how well CFD could match wind tunnel/flight test results: ACFD Challenge I in 1992
and ACFD Challenge II in 1999. Since that time, ACFD Challenge II has become the default
benchmark standard for comparisons for CFD predictions to flight test results. Several of the
organisers and participants are still active in the profession of arms and aircraft stores separation
/ certification and describe how this challenge has affected that process over the last fifteen
years.
Introduction
Since the time that computer based modelling and simulation (M&S) and then
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) was first found potentially capable of representing the
geometric complexity of an aircraft with external stores, there has been the desire to reduce or
even replace the need for the more traditional wind tunnel testing. The three detriments for full
utilization of CFD in this fashion have continued to be computational speed, computer resources
and accuracy of the solution. For example, PANAIR Application to Weapons Carriage and
Separation or AWCAS configuration in the early 1980’s[1], just one solution using a linear code
with less than 1000 panels(maximum), required full utilization of the CDC 6600 supercomputer of
that time for more than twenty-four hours. Clearly, the wind tunnel was in no danger at the time.
As a metric of where we are now, the same solution will now run in less than a minute on a
standard Dept. of Defense issued PC.
Over the past quarter of a century, the US Air Force, Army and Navy, Royal Australian Air
Force (RAAF), and Royal Canadian Air Force, amongst others primarily in Europe, have made
concerted efforts to accelerate the validation and verification necessary to enable the insertion of
the latest CFD methods into the aircraft stores certification process. There have been numerous
organized international conferences for this purpose using the American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics (AIAA), International Test & Evaluation (T&E) Association (ITEA), the US Joint
Ordnance Commander Group (JOCG), the Five Eyes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and
US) Air Standardization Coordinating Committee (ASCC) for Air Armament, The Technical
Cooperation Program (TTCP) and the NATO Science and Technology Organisation (STO).
The first of these conferences was for a ‘typical’ Wing / Pylon / Finned-Store, which
occurred in Hilton Head, SC in the summer of 1992. One of the important results from this initial
conference was the discovery that full potential methods [2, 3] gave answers equivalent to those
provided by an Euler code [3] for the wing lower surface in the presence of the store.
The second conference was sponsored by the US Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) funded Central T&E Investment Program (CTEIP) Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics
(ACFD) program. This was for the F-16 / Generic Finned Store; the conference took place in
New Orleans in the summer of 1996 and became known as ACFD Challenge I. For this meeting
lower order [4] solutions again exhibited good agreement with Euler and Navier Stokes codes. For
both these challenges, the participants were provided with the wind tunnel test data at the
beginning of the efforts.
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 2
The ACFD Challenge II was also sponsored by the OSD CTEIP ACFD program at the
39th AIAA conference at Reno, NV in January 1999 where the aircraft stores separation
configuration was the F/A-18C / Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)i. Australian involvement in
the Challenge was jointly funded by the RAAF and the U.S. Office of Naval Research
International Field Office Asia. Large sets of wind tunnel and flight test data existed for the
F/A18C JDAM configuration, Figure 1, and all the participants showed excellent correlation with
both the wind tunnel and flight test results. A detailed summary of the results for ACFD
Challenge II is available [5, 6]. This configuration has become the standard for store separation
code validation, with many new participants during the past two decades. However, the original
national and international participants did not have the advantage of knowing what the answers
were prior to conducting the calculation.
Figure 1. F/A-18C JDAM aircraft stores separation configuration for ACFD Challenge II
Aim
The aim of this paper is to revisit the Applied CFD Challenge II and discuss how it helped
establish CFD as an accepted tool in the aircraft stores compatibility modelling and simulation,
experimentation, test & evaluation (T&E) and certification process.
Background
Aircraft stores separation forms a key part of establishing the compatibility of an aircraft
stores configurationii to be operationally suitable and effective to perform testing, training and
conduct operations. Traditionally the Five Eyes and many NATO nations use MIL-STD-1763[7]
and MIL-HDBK-1763[8] / MIL-HDBK-244A[9], NATO STANAG 7068[10] and Science and
Technology (STO) AGARDOgraph 300 Vol 29 [11] as the basis for conducting modelling and
simulation (M&S), laboratory qualification wind tunnel tests prior to ground and flight
experimentation, and Test and Evaluation (T&E) to establish the certification basis for the aircraft
stores configurations needed.
The assessment of aircraft stores compatibilityiii includes an engineering review (called a
Judgement of Significance in Australia) by qualified ASC Design Engineers has occurred in the
following disciplines for each aircraft stores combination required to determine if a ‘significant
change’ (as defined in MIL-HDBK-1763) is made to an aircraft stores configuration in the areas of
physical, information, cognitive and social domains of war and their operational suitability and
effectiveness[12]:
I. Function;
II. Form and Fit;
III. Structural & Environmental;
IV. Aeroelasticity;
V. Captive Carriage, Handling/Flying Qualities & Performance;
VI. Employment & Jettison;
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 3
VII. Information Suitability: External Interfaces, Mission Planning, Ballistics and
OFP Validation & Verification, Safe Escape & Danger Areas (Safety Templates)[12];
VIII. Cognitive Suitability: Procedures, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures and
Human Factors;
IX. Emergent Properties for Critical Operational/Technical Issues / Measures of
Suitability/Effectiveness: Experimentation and T&E.
Engineering Review
The engineering review is most important for establishing such a degree of
interoperability i.e. compatibility and assessing interchangeability should commonality of doctrine,
equipment or processes not be agreed. Use of the ‘significant change’ criteria in MIL-HDBK-1763
now gives the design engineers and operational users some tolerances that enable minor
changes to be progressed without the huge systemic and organizational overheads of traditional
‘point design’ engineering done without interchangeability and prior thinking in mind. Use of such
methodologies clearly shows the maturity of any organization’s processes and leadership.
Figure 2. An Aircraft Stores Configuration Operating Limitations for
Carriage and Employment (Jettison not shown here).
Depending on the maturity of the stores and/or aircraft, there are four separate compatibility situations involved when authorization of a store on an aircraft is required. The four situations, in order of increasing risk, are:
• Adding ‘old’ in-service stores to the authorized stores list of ‘old’ aircraft.
• Adding ‘old’ stores to the authorized stores list of a ‘new’ aircraft.
• Adding ‘new’ stores to the authorized stores list of an ‘old’ aircraft, or adding new aircraft
stores configurations and/or expanding the flight operating envelope.iv v.
• Adding ‘new’ or modified stores to the authorized stores list of ‘new’ or modified aircraft.
The assessment of aircraft stores compatibility will determine the operating limitations that
will then be used by the aircrew in their Flight Manuals, as shown at Figure 2. The aircraft stores
configurations and expected operating limitations are always included in a good Concept of
Operations (Conops) as they may not need to be the maximum that the aircraft and stores can
achieve (i.e., Parent pylon versus multiple ejector rack configurations typically will have different
limits). For more mature aircraft and/or stores, and consequently those with less risk, the process
is specifically tailored against the OCD / Conops such that only those phases required to be
conducted to introduce the store into service need to be undertaken. For example, if all the
aircraft stores configurations have been successfully demonstrated or certified by known
ALITITUDE ( ft)
30,000
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 MACH NUMBER
700 KCAS
600 KCAS
500 KCAS
400 KCAS KCAS 300
CARRIAGE
EMPLOYMENT
0.9 0.7 0.5 0 0
20,000
10,000
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 4
Experimentation, T&E and (airworthiness) certification agencies to operating limits that satisfy the
User’ s Operational Requirement, an aircraft stores combination could be introduced directly into
service with minimal risk. While this strategy has been extremely successful in minimising the
work with specific aircraft stores configuration in an acquisition process that is platform-centric, it
is often thought less successful when viewed in the context of designing interchangeable stores
on fewer platform types. This warrants investment in trade-off studies to determine future
Armament Integration Mission Environment needs and often a capability realisation plan/strategy
with specific interoperability (covering the systems / System of Systems / Families of SoS [12],
their operating limits and the levels i.e., compatible versus interchangeable or common)
requirements in mind that meets both national and NATO/Five Eyes needs.
Certification approval. The agency requesting aircraft stores certification should be as
specific as possible as to their requirements in each of the areas above to assist the certification
agencies in establishing the criteria to be used in the clearancevi and certification effort. Through
the initial certification request and, if necessary, subsequent follow-ups, the certification agencies
will determine the appropriate criteria to be applied to the specific store certification program.
These criteria will include (but not be limited to) essential and desired aircraft stores
configurations (including any mixed load configurations) and the essential and desired operating
limitations such as: carriage speeds and accelerations, dive (or climb) release angle, release
modes, speeds, intervals and accelerations, selective and emergency jettison speeds,
accelerations, flight path angles, and required levels of accuracy, etc., as required for the aircraft
stores combination to be operationally effective.
Formal approval for certification of an aircraft-store/suspension equipment configuration is accomplished through publication of operational data in appropriate technical manuals. These are:
a. Navy: NATOPS Flight Manuals and Aircraft Tactical Manuals.
b. Army: Technical Manuals (Operators, Maintenance and Parts).
c. Air Force: Aircraft Technical Orders (-1, -2, -5, -16, -25, -30, , -33, -34, and -35).
d. Joint-Service Technical Data publications
Predicting safe and acceptable aircraft stores separation trajectories. As noted in MIL-HDBK-1763 etal [7-12] predicting accurate store separation trajectories on today’s high speed aircraft under the varying conditions of altitude, Mach number, flight path angle, load factor, and other factors related to delivery techniques (particularly where multiple carriage of stores is involved), is an extremely difficult task, requiring a skilled and experienced analyst. Several techniques are available for store separation analysis, and these are documented throughout the scientific literature. There are well proven wind tunnel and Computational Fluid Dynamic M&S experiences that have supported advanced weapon development and integration. Most Five Eyes and NATO nations use a variety of unique CFD codes to augment wind tunnel testing. These techniques have been extensively validated for external store separation. During the past decade, various AIAA Challenges have seen great progress and the US, under the auspices of the DoD High Performance Computing (HPC) Modernization Program Office have combined each of the Services’ initiatives to establish an Institute for HPC Applications to Air Armament (IHAAA) which has included key NATO and Five Eyes nations. Some are purely analytical in nature, utilizing theoretical aerodynamics and complex mathematical manipulation and analyst interpretation. Others utilize wind tunnel testing of small scale models of the store and aircraft, while still others involve a combination of theoretical and wind tunnel data, utilizing a high speed digital computer for data reduction. Wind tunnel test data for store separation may be obtained from one, or a combination of, the following:
a. Captive trajectory. This test uses a strain gauge balance within the separating store to
continually measure the forces and moments acting on the store. An on-line computer
simulation determines successive positions of the store through its trajectory.
b. Grid data. An instrumented store or pressure probe is used to measure the forces and
moments acting on the store in the flowfield through which the store must separate.
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 5
Trajectories are calculated off-line using this information as inputs to a trajectory program.
c. Dynamic drop. The dynamic drop tests use dynamically scaled models that are physically
separated in the wind tunnel. Data can either be photographical or telemetry. (This
method is generally limited to simulated level flight releases only.)
d. Carriage loads. In this test forces and moments are measured on the store, with the store
or weapon attached to the aircraft in its correct carriage position. These data are used as
inputs to trajectory computation programs.
No single technique will suffice for all cases. Rather, the analyst must examine the
particular case to be analyzed and select the technique that, in his opinion, offers the most
advantages for his particular situation. Most purely theoretical techniques available today suffer
severe degradation when applied to transonic store separation, or where multiple stores carriage
is involved.
The recent advances in CFD and semi-empirical techniques provide excellent tools for
engineering estimations or for use in conjunction with experimental data. Captive trajectories and
dynamic drops are expensive in that they are only for a specific flight condition. [6] Grid data are
superior because many flight and store characteristics can be changed while the grid data are
used as input for 6 degrees-of-freedom equations or other analytical tools. Grid data are also
required when considering the effects of changing the store’s automatic control system
gains/logic. Wind tunnel testing is cheaper than flight testing when the cost of aircraft flight time,
weapons assets, telemetry packages, and photogrammetric analyses are considered. For these
reasons, most analysts today employ hybrid methods which reduce costs while retaining wide
applicability.
Several AIAA stores separation workshops have seen M&S predictions challenged by blind
(hidden) actual flight test results. CFD has matured so that, given one
has enough time (and funds for advanced computer time for the number
of cases required), CFD can now clearly predict trajectories – however,
time and cost effective M&S are still a trade-off against accuracy and
fidelity (imagery at right courtesy of USAF SEEK EAGLE Office).
Aircraft stores separation analyses. As a first step in store separation analysis, all
available flight test and predicted data pertaining to the separation characteristics of the store in
question, either from the aircraft being examined or others with similar installations, should be
accumulated and screened for completeness of flight envelope coverage and for trends. If
existing data covers the store’s separation characteristics from the proper aircraft throughout the
desired flight envelope, delivery conditions (speed, dive angle, load factors, altitude), delivery
configuration and mode (single, pair, ripple, etc), little or no additional testing may be required to
allow certification. If this is not the case, however, additional data must be obtained in accordance
with the method of store separation prediction chosen. The mainstay analysis tool of the
weapons clearance community is the Captive Trajectory System (CTS). [12, 13] This tool was / is
usually the right level of fidelity for external clearance problems, because it has matched a very
rapid prediction capability (due to the assumption of quasi-steady flow), with an external store
flowfield which was quasi-steady. External flow over an aircraft in steady level flight (conditions
when you typically release weapons) is designed to be non-separated and steady. If the aircraft
is well-designed, then that is precisely what the external flow will be – attached, non-separated,
and relatively steady. For external weapon carriage and release, the flowfield that the store is
immersed in is therefore predominantly steady, and CTS works well for the prediction of store
trajectory in the majority of those cases. The exception (where CTS may not work well) for
external store integration is cases where aeroelastic effects predominate, and the carriage
structure movement itself is partly responsible for driving the flow unsteadiness.
Weapons bay cavity flows, on the other hand, are naturally and rather dramatically
unsteady, due to a robust self-reinforced acoustic resonance phenomenon, coupled to and driven
by an equally robust free shear layer instability. Within the vicinity of the open weapons bay
cavity, the quasi-steady assumption (the assumption that the store sees a single value of forces
and moments at each position and orientation which is constant and independent of time) does
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 6
not hold. All weapons bays with dimensions typical in modern aircraft installations exhibit this
self-sustained acoustic resonance, to varying degrees. This would lead one to conclude that it
may not be very conservative to use the CTS process to clear weapons released from within
weapons bays. The exception to the strong unsteady weapons bay behavior are cases where
effective flow control devices (such as properly designed leading edge spoilers) have been
employed to suppress self-sustained oscillations, and the resultant high acoustic levels and
unsteady loads have been suppressed. Unsteady pressure levels in unsuppressed weapons
bays can be high enough (160 to 180 dB) to damage aircraft bulkheads, or to “instantly” tear off
weapon components
It is useful at this point to clearly define what is meant by unsteady weapon trajectory
effects. It is easiest to describe the most dramatic case – which was termed a “bifurcation” [13].
The unsteady shear layer in the weapons bay is the dominant source of flow unsteadiness.
When a weapons bay experiences strong acoustic resonance, the flow tends to take on a
twodimensional character, with the formation of coherent 2D “rollers” which span the cavity. In
this situation, an unsteady component of normal force is created along the bay which changes
sign from instant to instant – from “into the bay” to “out of the bay”, and vice versa. It is possible
in this circumstance, depending on the time of release of the weapon, for the store to tend to fly
toward or away from the bay, depending on the time of release. This pitch “bifurcation” behavior
is the most dramatic example of unsteady weapon trajectory effects.
Separation operating limitations. Store employment covers separating the store from
the aircraft in its normal operational mode. It should cover separations at all speeds up to the
allowable speed in level and maneuvering flight, both in the single release mode, and in multiple
release (ripple) mode down to the minimum release interval. Particular attention should be given
to releases of unpowered stores in large dive angles (60° or greater) at the attendant low g
(cosine of the dive angle). Such separations can be, and often are, extremely dangerous,
particularly for unstable or low density stores. In determining the separation envelope, the review
should also consider that some parts of the flight envelope will not require analyses due to a more
restrictive dive recovery or safe escape limitation. It should also be kept in mind that proper store
employment denotes not only safe separation from the aircraft, but also that the separation be
relatively unperturbed so as to assure rate capture and not to adversely affect delivery accuracy.
Analyzing the launch transient phase of store separation is extremely difficult. It generally
involves guided stores, such as electro-optical guided bombs, which contain autopilot and
guidance systems that are active during store separation to avoid target breaklock or radical store
movements caused by release perturbations. If every component functions properly, separation
will be completely safe and unperturbed. However, control failure or spurious guidance signals
causing abnormal control deflections at release can cause high-energy collisions with the aircraft.
Because of these possibilities, a reliability analysis of the store guidance and control system will
be performed, and the results of possible failures identified and examined for probability of
occurrence and effect on store separation. Although no specific pass-fail criteria can be used in
all cases, probabilities of failure of a single component causing an impact on the aircraft should
be kept in the realm of 10-6. If this cannot be done, the effects of control failure modes on
separation trajectory should be analyzed or store redesign should be effected prior to flight
testing.
Internal weapons carriage is being used to improve the aircraft aerodynamic performance and
low observable characteristics. The separation of stores from a weapons bay may be
significantly impacted by the unsteady flow in the bay. These temporal effects may not be
captured during wind tunnel testing which use a quasi-steady approach to run the CTS to
determine the store trajectories. One of the first IHAAA tasks undertaken by the store
separations team was the Store Separation from Cavity project. The goal of this project was to
determine CFD application best practices for the separation of stores from weapons bays. This is
a current real-world problem that can benefit from the optimal application of HPC technology.
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 7
Jettison criteria. Jettison of a store (or a store/suspension equipment combination)
involves the releasing of items from the aircraft during emergencies (emergency jettison) or as
normal operation after expenditure of cargo or submunitions (selective jettison). Examples of
these would be weapons, fuel tanks, gun pods, dispensers and multiple bomb racks complete
with some or all of its weapons. The primary concern of any jettison is to separate the item, or
items, from the aircraft safely, without collision, because there is no requirement for accurate
delivery. This phase of store separation is by far the most dangerous to the releasing aircraft
since many items jettisoned are aerodynamically unstable, usually of low density, and their
separation behavior is generally erratic and unrepeatable. If at all possible, the jettison envelope
of a store should be close to the full authorized carriage flight envelope. Jettisons are, however,
commonly limited to level flight (plus and minus a reasonable g tolerance, and sideslip). Jettison
envelopes that are limited to a single speed, or those that specify a very narrow speed, altitude or
dynamic pressure band, should be avoided, if at all possible.
ACFD Challenge II Discussion
Large sets of wind tunnel and flight test data existed for the F/A-18C JDAM configuration
as a result of USN store certification effort. During the flight test phase, both photogrammetrics
and telemetry were used to track the position of the store during releases. Out of these tests, two
release conditions were selected for this CFD Challenge. The basis for these two cases included
the following considerations: 1) matching aircraft and store geometry in both wind tunnel and
flight tests, 2) correlation between wind tunnel data and flight test data, 3) possession of both high
transonic and low supersonic cases with interesting JDAM miss distance time histories, 4) ability
to publicly release the wind tunnel and flight test data to an international audience.
The test cases for the F/A-18 GBU-38 JDAM configuration at Figure 1 were M = 0.962 at
6,382 ft. and M = 1.05 at 10,832 ft. Both cases were for the aircraft in a 45-degree dive. For
these two test cases, the configuration geometry for the wind tunnel and flight test were with the
JDAM mounted on the outboard pylon, with the 330-gallon fuel tank on the inboard pylon. The
SUU-63 BRU-32A/A ejector rack provided a nominal peak force of 7,000lbs for both forward and
aft ejectors. The implementation of ejector force modeling was left at the discretion of the
participants. Both CTS grid data, and store aerodynamic force and moment data, measured on
the wing pylon, were available for these aircraft configuration. These data were input into a
sixdegree-of-freedom trajectory code before the flight tests were performed. Parametric
variations on flight conditions and store aerodynamic forces were performed to ensure that the
flight test could be safely accomplished. After the flight tests were completed, the trajectory
simulations were again performed, with the actual flight conditions used to try to match the flight
test results. Case 1 was flight test #13 conducted on July 10, 1996. The store was released in
a 43 degree dive at 6,382 ft. at M = 0.962. Case 2 flight test #14 was conducted on August 29,
1996. The store was released in a 44 degree dive at 10,832 ft. at M = 1.055. [6] Each participant
was requested to include in their paper.[6]
1) a description of the CFD and trajectory integration methods used to produce the estimates
of the trajectory;
2) a description of the methods and resources required to produce the computational grid;
3) estimates of carriage loads, the position and attitude of the store throughout the computed
trajectories and an estimate of the miss distance versus time; and
4) metrics of the CFD process used, including convergence rate, man-hours and time
required for grid generation, computer resources used and an estimate of the expertise of
personnel required to replicate the results.
One of the key, unique feature of ACFD II was that it was intentionally run as a blind test
comparison, i.e. the participants were provided with the aircraft and store geometry, and the flight
test release conditions, and were requested to provide their solution before the actual flight test
results were released. All the papers presented exhibited good to excellent agreement with the
flight test results. [6]
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 8
Eight papers by Cenko [14], Hall [15], Tomaro [16], Woodson [17], McGroy [18], Fairlie[19],
Welterlen [20], and Benmeddour [21] were submitted for the ACFD Challenge II. The meeting was
held at the AIAA Annual meeting in Reno Nevada on January 12th, 1999. Due to the interest in
the Challenge, the timing of the session and the venue were changed to enable seating for
around 200 people; despite this, the room was filled to capacity with over 50 people having to
stand in the back for four hours. The first paper by Cenko described the wind tunnel and flight
test results, while the other seven described the application of seven different CFD codes to the
problem. Two of the papers[15, 18] were not ready in time to be included in the meeting
proceedings, but all eight papers were either presented at the meeting, or the results were
provided at a later date. [6]
The quality of the invited papers and presentations reinforced the approach used by the
AFCD Challenge sponsors. However, taking these presentations as representative of state of the
art for applying current CFD-based tools for stores carriage and separations indicated that wind
tunnels would still be relied on for the provision of the major part of the aerodynamic data on
which stores certification are to be safely based. Indeed it was acknowledged that the CFD
solutions were in the majority of cases within the error range of the wind tunnel and flight test
data. Accuracy would not therefore seem to be issue, but rather the time required to produce a
solution needed to be decreased significantly. The conclusion was that CFD-based tools should
become far more prevalent in use during Requirements Definition and Systems Engineering
trade-off studies for the aircraft and stores thereby reducing the likelihood of expensive aircraft
and/or store redesign after hardware has been made. [6]
One other general result was the consensus that improvements in the ejector modelling
and ejector foot/store interaction during the ejection needed to be accomplished. [6] One of the
principal drawbacks of CFD Challenge II was that all the CFD results, using both Euler and
Navier Stokes, as well as a simulation that ignored the JDAM canards gave similar results. Did
that mean that Navier Stokes formulation does not have to be used, or were the test cases
selected fortuitous for the inviscid formulation? Indeed, Welterlen showed that the inviscid
calculation was superior to the viscous one. Since diagnostic data were not available, it was
impossible to say whether the SPLITFLOW viscous formulation was at fault, or that the inviscid
results had a fortuitous canceling error. It was the consensus of the participants that another
CFD Challenge, one that would have diagnostic data (store and wing pressures) was merited.[6]
Another unique feature of this challenge was that representatives of national agencies in
Australia, Canada and the US formed a judging panel that reported the results [6, 12]
Accelerated development of store-trajectory-prediction techniques using flight
measurements
The previous F/A-18/JDAM CFD Challenge example showed that while gross forces /
moments and trajectory traces are useful for establishing global agreement in store-trajectory
prediction, they do not provide the insight into the detailed flow physics required when analysing
the differences between CFD codes or experimental results.
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 9
Figure 3. F/A-18C/MK-83 Test Configuration and CFD vs PSP CP comparisons
In the collaborative program, Accelerated Development of Store Trajectory Prediction
Techniques Using Flight Measurements (KTa 2-18) [22, 23], pressure-sensitive paint (PSP) was
used at the Canadian National Research Council’s (NRC) High-Speed Wind-Tunnel; and
flighttest-trajectory data for the release of a single MK 83 1000lb class low-drag store from a
vertical ejector on the wing of an F/A-18 were available. The results were compared with CFD
predictions using a range of flow solvers.
Pressure-coefficient (Cp) data derived from PSP measurements enabled better insight into shock
locations and highlighted the issues involved in the use of inviscid codes for release predictions
with viscous effects. Good agreement was achieved both with the pressure comparisons, as
shown in Figure 4, and with the flight-test trajectories. A major benefit of the collaborative activity
was the access to a richer ground-based experimental dataset with flight validation data. The use
of PSP, and the availability of extensive comparative CFD data highlighted limitations of the
experimental technique, such as surface contamination and deterioration [22], as well as minimum
flow solver requirements.
Figure 4. B-1 GBU-38 JDAM aircraft stores separation configuration
B-1 weapons bay releases of GBU-38
The last such Challenge was for the release of the GBU-38 version of JDAM from the
B-1B bomb bay, Figure 4. One advantage of doing a blind comparison was that all the
participants, at first, came up with the wrong result and gained a deeper understanding of the
discipline before making predictions for use in flight clearance and test purposes. [13, 24]
Warfighter operational needs.
The first direct operational impact of ACFD Challenge II was the quick response to support
an immediate US Navy warfighter need. The operational requirement was for the flight test
clearance of the sequential release of two CVER mounted GBU-12 Laser Guided Bombs from an
F/A-18C aircraft with an adjacent 330 gallon tank to support Operation Iraqi Freedom, Figure 5. Because of time constraints, a wind tunnel test could not be conducted. Without supporting wind
tunnel data or analysis, the typical flight test approach is referred to as a buildup approach (also
known by some neophytes as the hit or miss method). With this approach, store drops are first
started at relatively benign condition and then additional flight tests are performed at increasing
Mach numbers and dynamic pressures while gradually approaching the desired flight release
condition or until it is determined that it is unsafe to continue. This is a costly and time consuming
approach.
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 10
Figure 5. F/A-18 / Canted VER GBU-12 aircraft stores separation configuration and Miss Distance As a result of the ACFD Challenge II, the USAF Seek Eagle Office already had the Beggar [25]
grids for the GBU-12 and for the F/A-18C aircraft. They led a cooperative effort with NAVAIR
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 11
to demonstrate that using computer resources and tools could impact a time critical flight test
program. Within a short period of time, the team was able to perform time-accurate CFD
trajectory simulations and to supply results that compared well with flight test drop at a lower
Mach number. They also simulated the store trajectories at the desired maximum release
condition - a higher Mach number. Although the miss distance during the flight test at the more
benign condition was too close to authorize a flight clearance to proceed to the next condition,
Figure 5, the CFD time-accurate trajectory showed that the store would clear at the desired
condition and authorization to continue flight testing was granted. The computations mitigated the
risk and allowed the flight test program to achieve its goals. The CFD predictions were in
excellent agreement with the flight test results. Based on this, the flight test program proceeded
to the transonic end point, M = 0.97, 45 degree dive. Further details about this project are
available [26]. Figure 5 also shows the computed GBU-31 trajectory from the F-18C/D aircraft.
One additional outcome from the CFD Challenges was an improvement [27] in wind tunnel
testing techniques for store separation.
The success of the CFD Challenges led to joint participation in several further Key Technical
areas (KTa’s) under the auspices of TTCP Panel WPN-2, Launch and Flight Dynamics, as
described in the following sections.
AEDC wind tunnel
Figure 6. F-111 Weapon bay with miniature munitions (PLOCAAS) and ASRAAM in-flight.
© AOSG-RAAF Analysis of the acoustic suppression, active separation control and
release of miniature munitions from RAAF F-111 aircraft
With the advent of the F-35 Lightning II JSF, P-8 Poseidon, and concepts for future Remote
Piloted Aircraft / UCAVs, all designed with internal weapons carriage, forward-looking US and
Five Eyes research programs focused on the understanding of the complex aerodynamics and
aeroacoustics of weapons bays. The RAAF was still operating the F-111, and the Australian – US
collaborators saw opportunities to use a flight-test F-111 to investigate the phenomenology of
cavity flows with the Small Smart Bomb (SSB) in 2001 [28, 29, 30, 31] and, in 2005, Powered Low Cost
Autonomous Attack System (PLOCAAS) shapes from a Boeing preumatic ejector rack using
active separations control [32, 33], shown in Figure 6.
In the collaborative program, analysis of the Release of the SSB from the F-111 Aircraft
(KTa 2-22) [32 - 34], neither the wind-tunnel, nor CFD results matched the flight-test results. Not
unexpectedly, the wind tunnel results did not reflect the carriage to initial release trajectory
because the aft store trajectories started some two feet (at full scale) from the carriage position, as
shown in Figure 8 at right.
Because a trajectory is largely determined by initial conditions, if these are wrong, the
prediction will be in error. The forward store was tested at the end-of-stroke position; and, although
Aft - sting arrangement F - 111 – SSB in the US
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 12
those trajectories seemed to compare better, sting interference effects in the cavity might have
corrupted the subsonic and transonic results. Although this collaborative program did not resolve
the issue of CFD applicability to internal weapon bays, it helped determine the windtunnel-testing
methodology for the F-35 JSF and P-8A Poseidon programs.
Further, the work indicated that the lack of a priori information on sting effects could be overcome with CFD techniques; in this way, stings could be designed for minimal, or at least known, impact.
For these reasons, a new collaborative program, Weapon and Cavity Aerodynamics and
Aeroacoustics (KTa 2-26) [34, 35] was initiated in 2008. The work in this case was based on the
UCAV 1303 geometry [36]. This configuration has been widely studied, and significant experimental
testing has occurred [36, 37] for a generic store in a rectangular weapon bay, along with
complementary CFD.
RAAF F/A-18 JASSM clearance and certification
Prior to the ACFD II challenge there had been some scepticism as to the ability of CFD to
contribute meaningfully to the store separation clearance process at meaningful airspeeds. In
Australia CFD had been successfully used in the late 1990’s to clear the current Mk65 mine from
AP-3C aircraft for mine trials as shown at Figure 7. This was more to validate the USN flight
clearance against the current aircraft and weapon types rather than ab initio effort. The fact that
ACFD II was a blind test and still gave good results established confidence in the CFD methods
within the Australian stores clearance community. This led to greater acceptance and use of CFD
for RAAF stores integration projects including the F-111C integration of GBU-24 and AGM142
missile, also shown at Figure 7. Another example of which is the integration of the AGM-158
JASSM on the RAAF F/A-18A/B.[38]
Figure 7. DSTO - RAAF AP-3C / Mk 65 mine and F-111C AGM-142 missile carriage and
separation using CFD
The small size of the Australian transonic wind tunnel at DSTO Melbourne drives the use of
half aircraft models for stores integration testing. Data from this arrangement has been
consistently proven to be of high quality but obviously suffers from an inability to measure the
effects of sideslip and effects on whole aircraft configurations. Furthermore, the maximum Mach
that can be achieved in the tunnel is limited to just over Mach 1.1 for practical aircraft stores
configurations. CFD has been used to augment the wind tunnel data by filling in the “gaps” in wind
tunnel data.
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 13
Figure 8. F/A-18 A/D AGM-158 JASSM CFD.
The AGM-158 presented a significant integration challenge. This is a large missile of
noncircular cross section with highly non linear aerodynamic characteristics and is asymmetric due
to the upper fin folded to one side for carriage. It is also initially very unstable and requires the
upper fin to deploy and wings to be partially deployed very early to achieve a level of stability
during separation. On the RAAF F/A-18 the primary carriage configuration is on the outboard wing
pylons with External Fuel Tanks on inboard wing stations. The proximity of the EFTs causes
significant aerodynamic interference effects and represents a collision risk for deploying fin and
wings.
Figure 9. RAAF flight test F/A-18 Hornet with AGM-158 JASSM. © AOSG- RAAF
Grid loads were generated for the missile in several stages of wing and fin deployment using
the half aircraft model in the DSTO Transonic wind tunnel. By testing the store model configured
with the upper fin folded to left and also to the right side the effect of the store asymmetry could be
accommodated in the tunnel data. However the effect of sideslip for the potentially sensitive and
risky separation next to the EFT could not be determined in the wind tunnel with a half aircraft
model. To overcome this deficiency, CFD was used to provide the incremental effects of sideslip
on the carriage and grid loads at Figure 9.
The hybrid use of wind tunnel data supplemented by CFD proved to be very effective and
culminated in a series of successful flight tests such as is shown at Figure 10.
Figure 10. F/A-18 Litening Pod with MK84 stores separation F/A-18 separation effects with
targeting pods
As the military and political requirement for precision strike has increased, the requirements
for precision targeting pods, such as the AN/AAQ-28 Litening Pod and AN/ASQ-228 Advanced
Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pod, have had significant impacts on
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 14
ASC programs. The pods modify aircraft external geometries and, in many cases, decrease the
store-to-aircraft distances in critical areas. In 2005, Northrop Grumman marketed the Litening Pod
to the Australian and Canadian governments for use on their F/A-18A/B/C/D aircraft.
Northrop Grumman contracted NAVAIR, via a commercial-services agreement, to support
flight certification of the Litening Pod and the associated pylon-mounting system on station 4,
illustrated in Figure 10. The goal was to clear the GBU-12, GBU-38, MK-84, Dual AIM-120, and
330-US-gallon FPU-8 fuel tank adjacent to a Litening Pod to the present TACMAN limits (with an
adjacent ATFLIR).
The following discussion illustrates a number of examples of weapon/pod mixes that
demonstrate the evolution of the tools and techniques applied to the ASC problem.
CFD-based clearance of stores on F/A-18
During the first phase of the project, the lessons learned from the F-18/JDAM CFD
Challenge, as well as from the TTCP “Accelerated Development of Store Trajectory Prediction
Techniques Using Flight Measurements (KTa 2-18)” allowed CFD to be used to clear the MK 65
mine from the RAAF AP-3C for a flight test demonstration and GBU-12, the GBU-38, MK-82, MK-
83, and MK-84 from the F/A-18 parent pylon without the need for wind-tunnel testing[37, 40, 41]. Figure
11 shows a comparison between the predicted pitch, yaw and roll attitudes and the flighttest results
for the MK-84 trajectory. This validated the approach used and determined the next steps to
augment the CFD with targeted wind tunnel data for more complex configurations and conditions,
such as missile launcher assembly jettison.
Importantly, results from the RAAF – USAF F-111 miniature munitions program indicate
that CFD can be used to account for sting-interference effects in the cavity [40], as well as to predict
the weapon-bay aerodynamics and aeroacoustics.
CFD Applications to Aircraft/Weapon Integration
A novel use of CFD in aircraft/weapon integration was achieved early in the JSF Program.
The effects of different fuel tank designs were examined. Considerable improvement in the
separation characteristics of adjacent stores were achieved, Figure 11 [51].
Figure 11 JSF Fuel Tank Re-Design to Improve Store Trajectories
Future multi-disciplinary armament systems compatibility approach for capability
preparedness of joint task forces
The previous sections have used a number of examples to illustrate the RAAF/NAVAIR
collaborative programs that have helped both partners build techniques and tools and issue
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 15
clearances. However, future weapons clearances in a more complex, network-centric-warfare
space will add complexity to the currently stove-piped process; hence, a framework will be
required. This will address in particular the network-enabled operations between systems that at
the time of the release MIL-HDBK-1763 [8] was not required. The NATO Air Launched Weapons
Integration study in 2004 [42] recommended that a NATO STANAG be developed over the next 10–
20 years to improve the reusability of aircraft-stores-certification criteria and to streamline the
approaches used. The use of a NATO ‘CODe of practice for Experimentation’ (CODEx) for the
testing of joint fires[45 - 47] operational capabilities in a new Joint fires Armament Integrated Mission
Environment’
(JAIME) with ‘network-centric complex, adaptive mission capabilities’ employing both kinetic
(weapons), non-kinetic (electromagnetic) directed energy and cyber effects could assist in this,
based on the successes with the use of MIL-HDBK-1763 [8, 12] for what are considered simple and
complicated ASC flight clearance and certifications in today’s language.
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 16
Figure 13. Capability Preparedness Levels and OPCF P6 Framework [12] vii
Research using grounded theory and case studies investigated use of MIL-HDBK-1763, the
TTCP GUIDE to Experimentation (GUIDEx) [48] and as a result the JAIME CODEx has been
proposed [49, 50] as a disclosure draft for further development by NATO STO. [12, 49] The research
was conducted in collaboration with over 300 Five Eyes and NATO STO members and other
subject-matters experts. As part of that effort, McKee and Tutty [49] reported on the current
methods used nationally and internationally for capability preparedness/management,
systemsengineering, T&E and project-management practices. They identified the key elements
that will increase the confidence in future military capabilities being operationally suitable and
effective that are evidence-based and scientifically defensible.
Figure 1 2 . Systems, systems of systems (SoS), and family of SoS (FoS)
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 17
Figure 14. Operational Capability and Preparedness ET&E Framework
Figure 15. Operational Capability and Preparedness P6 Framework
A conceptual framework for network-enabled, force-level armament systems compatibility
has been proposed [12, 47 - 50] to achieve balanced capability management that integrates the
experimentation, systems engineering, test and evaluation, and system-safety communities, as
shown in Figures 12 to 17 throughout the life of the capability and that ET&E and certification is
synchronized to ensure operational commanders have confidence in the capability, at least at the
JTF level.
To effectively deal with the increasing complexity and interdependence of current and future
network enabled military systems, experimentation and testing and evaluation (ET&E) must
evolve and mature so as to detect undesirable and/or unexpected results, e.g., interdependencies
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 18
of safe-separation certification with seemingly unrelated upgrades to mission-systems software.
Surprises in this already complex environment will increase as the complexity of the systems of
systems (SoS) and family of systems of systems (FoS) increases with national and international
interoperability expectations of operational commanders and users.
Figure 16. US Distributed M&S LVC operational view via InterTEC, Tutty[12, 44]
To implement this strategy, a change in focus by both the systems engineering and the
experimentation and T&E organisations will be needed, so that they are able to also conduct
scientifically rigorous testing, training, and experimentation that build confidence and remove risks
in capabilities for conducting secure, network-enabled real-time kinetic and non-kinetic effects.
Figure 17. JAIME Weapon Danger Area for Yin safety and Mission Success Regions of
Significant Influence (RoSI) conventions for Yang at the Mission Level
The ability to independently test systems, SoS, and FoS using a scientifically defensible
approach using the LVC environment is critical. As predicted by and Cenko etal [51], in the aircraft-
stores-separations arena, scientists and engineers will see a new higher-level systems
engineering level approach for wind-tunnel and flight tests with increased use of CFD. Steinle et
al [43] for example also propose numerous improvements in wind-tunnel testing and CFD modelling
with the Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) ‘simulation’ worlds via use of the joint-T&E methods
discussed in Tutty [12], while also performing other, more mundane roles.
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 19
Conclusion
Over the past three decades, collaboration between the Five Eyes in the area of aircraft stores separation has considerably improved the capabilities of each nation. These joint efforts have established the credibility of new tools, eliminated duplication, and provided significant cost savings.
These collaborative efforts were the result of predominantly Five Eyes and NATO, ASCC
and TTCP international agreements and specialist conferences (AIAA, ICAS, ITEA), as well as
agreements between individuals to do interesting work that would complement their respective
agencies’ priorities. Future joint task forces using families of systems of systems will require even
more collaborative and cooperative systems for aircraft-stores configurations to be part of a greater
framework that has armament systems compatibility across the systems of systems and are
operationally suitable, effective and prepared.
Movie 1. Joint fires LVC animated view, [12] viii
CFD has become an increasingly accepted tool in the aircraft stores separation and
certification process. The paper discussed how ACFD Challenge II helped advance this process,
and described how more recent efforts help explain why Euler solutions for this configuration agree
reasonably well with the flight test results. [27]
MIL-HDBK-1763 has been critical to this revolution in air armament affairs until now, to which
ACFD has been a common initiative. To address the network enabling of joint fires operational
capabilities, the Five Eyes and NATO need to urgently develop and implement use of a
replacement based on the research underpinning the proposed JAIME CODEx to ensure that
armament system compatibility is established and maintained for increasing the confidence of
commanders and operational users in what levels of interoperability and capability preparedness
are demonstrated and are scientifically based. The tools developed in use of CFD in the aircraft
stores separation and certification area are long overdue for use in other domains such as
nonkinetic electromagnetic compatibility, directed energy and cyber operations to achieve this.
References
1. Cenko, A., Tinoco, E.N., Dyer, R.D., and DeJongh, J., (1981), PAN AIR Applications to
Weapons Carriage and Separation, J. Aircraft, Vol. 18, Feb. 1981, pp 129-134.
2. Madson, M. et al, 1994, (1994), TranAir Computations of the flow about a Generic Wing /
Pylon / Finned-Store Configuration, AIAA paper 94-0155, Jan. 1994.
3. Newman, J.C. and Baysal, O., (1992), Transonic Solutions of a Wing/Pylon/Finned Store
Using Hybrid Domain Decomposition, AIAA paper 92-4571, Aug. 1992.
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 20
4. Madson, M. and M. Talbot, (1996), F-16/Generic Store Carriage Load Predictions at Transonic
Mach Numbers using TranAir, AIAA-96-2454, June, 1996.
5. Cenko, A., and Lutton, M., (2000), ACFD Applications to Store Separation – Status Report,
The Aeronautical Journal, Volume 104, Number 1040, Oct 2000.
6. Cenko, A., Gowanlock, D., Lutton, M., and Tutty, M., (2000), F-8C/JDAM ACFD Challenge II
Results, AIAA 2000-0795
7. MIL-STD-1763, (1984), Aircraft Stores Certification Procedures, US Department of Defence,
MIL-STD-1763A dated 31 December 1990, USA.
8. MIL-HDBK-1763, (1998), Aircraft Stores Compatibility: Systems Engineering Data
Requirements and Test Procedures, US DoD Handbook, dated 15 June 1998, USA
9. MIL-HDBK-244A, (1990), Guide to Aircraft/Stores Compatibility, US Department of Defense,
USA, dated 6 April 1990.
10. STANAG 7068, (2001), NATO Standardization Agreement Aircraft/Stores Certification
Procedures, 12 July 2011, Edition 2, NATO Military Agency for Standardization, 1110
Brussels, Belgium
11. NATO STO AGARDOgraph 300 Vol 29, (2014) Aircraft/Stores Compatibility, Integration and
Separation Testing, Brussels, Belgium
12. Tutty, M.G., (2015), The profession of arms in the Information Age: operational joint fires
capability preparedness in a small-world, Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, University of South Australia, 1 July 2015 [Online, posted July 2015]. See
www.maltutty.com / Contents
13. Cenko, A., Benek, J., Deslandes, R., Dillenius, M., Stanek, M., (2008), Unsteady Weapon Bay
Aerodynamics - Urban Legend or Flight Clearance Nightmare, AIAA 2008-0189
14. Cenko, A., (1999), F/A-18C/JDAM CFD Challenge Wind Tunnel and Flight Test Results.
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, USA, AIAA-99-0120, pp 1–9.
15. Hall, L., (1999), Navier-Stokes/6-DOF Analysis of the JDAM Store Separation from the
F/A18C Aircraft, AIAA Paper 99-0121, Jan. 1999.
16. Tomaro, R., et. al., (1999), A Solution on the F-18C for Store Separation Simulation using
COBALT, AIAA Paper 99-0122, Jan. 1999.
17. Woodson, S., and Bruner, C., (1999), Analysis of Unstructured CFD Codes for the Accurate
Prediction of A/C Store Trajectories, AIAA Paper 99-0123, Jan. 1999.
18. McGroy, W., et. al., (1999), Store Trajectory Analysis About the F/A-18C Using GUST
Unstructured Grid Generation and Flow Solver Package, AIAA Paper 99-0125, Jan. 1999.
19. Fairlie, B.D., and Caldeira, R.H., (1999), Prediction of JDAM separation characteristics from
the F/A-18C aircraft. 37th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA-
990126, pp 1–11.
20. Welterlen, T., (1999), Store Release Simulation on the F/A-18C using Splitflow, AIAA-0124,
Jan 1999
21. Benmeddour, A., et al, (1999), Application of the Canadian Code to the F/A-18C JDAM
Separation, AIAA Paper 99-0127, Jan. 1999.
22. Tang, N., et. al., (2004), Accelerated development of store trajectory prediction techniques
using flight measurements. TTCP WPN – 2 Key Task 2-18, TTCP.
23. Cenko, A., Niewoehner, R., and Ryckebusch, C., (2002), Evaluation of the Capabilities of CFD
to Predict Store Trajectories from Attack Aircraft, ICAS paper 2.6.1, Sept. 2002.
24. Lee, J., and Cenko, A., (2008), Evaluation of GBU-38 Separation from the B-1B Aft Bay, AIAA-
2008-0185.
25. Noak,et.al.,(2000), Fully time accurate CFD simulations of JDAM separation from an F-18C
aircraft, AIAA-2000-0794.
26. Sickles, W., Jolly, B., and Lee, J., (2006), Store Separation with Moving and Deploying
Surfaces, F-18C/D - GBU-12 Simulation, IHAAA Report, Dec. 2006.
27. Cenko, A.,(2013), Mach Sweep Technique for Store Separation Wind Tunnel Testing, AIAC
2013-028.
28. Balogh, N., and Lopez, R., (2003), US / Australian F-111G Miniature Munitions Flight Test
Program, 10th ASC ITEA, Ft Walton Beach, FL
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 21
29. Leugers, J., et al, (2002), Flight Test Demonstration of Miniature Munitions Release from
Internal Weapons Bay – Final Test Report, AFRL-MN-EG-TR-2002-7011, January 2002
30. Grove, J., et al, (2003), USAF/RAAF F-111 Flight Test with Active Separation Control, AIAA
paper 2003-9, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 6-9 January 2003, Reno,
Nevada.
31. Baskaran, V., Cenko, A., Foster, G.W., Grove, J., Johnson, R., Lee, J., Orchard, D., and Tang,
F.C., (2007), Analysis of the release of the SSB from the F-111 aircraft. KTA 2-22, TTCP.
32. Morgret, C.H., (2003), Predicted Separation Characteristics of the Powered Low-Cost
Autonomous Attack System (PLOCAAS) from the F-111 Aircraft Based on Wind Tunnel
Measurements. Arnold Engineering Development Center Report (Draft).
33. Blyth, R.H., (2003), Trajectory predictions of the Powered Low-cost Autonomous Attack
System (PLOCAAS) Tandem Park released from the weapon bay of the F-111G aircraft.
Defence Science and Technology Organisation (Australia).
34. Chaplin, R., and Birch, T., (2012), Aero-acoustics and store release from the weapons bay of
a generic UCAV. AIAA-2012-3338.
35. Wong, M., Mckenzie, G.J., Ol, M.V., Pettersen, K., and Zhang, S., (2006), Joint TTCP CFD
studies into the 1303 UCAV performance: First year results. 24th Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, San Francisco, US, AIAA-2006-2984
36. Aircraft Research Association., (2002), Tests conducted in the ARA 2.74 m x 2.44 m
Transonic Wind Tunnel on the release of a generic MK-82/GBU-30 JDAM store model from a
generic UCAV model using the two sting rig. M 399/2.
37. Cenko A, Lee J, Hallberg E, Matheson N, Benmeddour A, Jolly B and Bent, J., (2007), A
Collaborative International Approach to Store Separation.” ITEA 2007, Kuaui, pp 126–133.
38. Akroyd, G., (2010), F/A-18 JASSM Separate Case Study, 15th ASC ITEA, FL, USA
39. Snyder, M., Shah, R., O'Brien, C., Davis, N., Metzger, J., Nordlund, R., Smith, M., and Cenko,
A., (2011), Strut effects on store freestream aerodynamics. AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Meeting, AIAA-2011-3159.
40. Cenko A, Lee J, Getson E, Hallberg E, Jolly B and Sickles W.,(2007), IHAAA applications to
reducing store separation flight testing, AIAA-2007-1653.
41. Lam S, Drobik J and Cenko A., (2010), Validation of plane of symmetry testing in the DSTO
Transonic Wind Tunnel. Aircraft-Stores Compatibility Symposium pp 1–23.
42. Welterlen, T., (1996) Application of viscous, Cartesian CFD to aircraft store carriage and
separation simulation, AIAA-96-2453.
43. Steinle, Dr F., Mills. M., and Mickle, E.J., (2010), A 2025+ view of the art of wind tunnel
testing. ITEA Journal 2010, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp 131–145.
44. NATO NAFAG, (2004), Final report, follow-up study, aircraft, launcher and weapon
interoperability (ALWI-2). NATO Air Group 2 on Air Weapons, NATO Industrial Advisory
Group, Brussels, Belgium.
45. US Joint Forces Publication JP 3-09, (2006), Joint Fire Support, 13 Nov 2006
46. US Joint Forces Publication FM 3-09.32, (2010), JFire - Multi-service Tactics, Techniques and
Procedures for the Joint Application of Firepower, December 2010
47. US Range Commanders Council (RCC) Standard 321:07, (2007), Common Risk Criteria
Standards for National Test Ranges
48. GUIDEx, (2006), TTCP Guide for Understanding and Implementing Defense Experimentation
(GUIDEx), The Technical Cooperation Program, [Online, accessed 15 July 2007]. URL:
http://www.dtic.mil/ttcp/guidex.htm
49. McKee. S., and Tutty, M.G., (2012), Doing more of the right high end effects-based things
without more - from basics to families of system of systems capabilities. ITEA Journal 2012,
Vol 31, No. 33, September, 2012 JITE-33-03-05 pp 203 – 243 [Online, accessed May 2013]
See www.maltutty.com
50. JAIME CODEx, (2014), Armament Systems Compatibility: Joint fires Armament Integrated
Mission Environment, Armament Systems Compatibility: Code of Practice for Test,
Experimentation and Certification – JAIME CODEx and The Tests, Disclosure Draft V2.0,
[Posted online October 2014] See www.maltutty.com
AIAC-2015-022 Tutty etal
P a g e | 22
51. Cenko, A., Piranian, A., and Talbot, M., (1997), Navy integrated T&E approach to store
separation. IAC, Chester, UK.
52. Drobik, J., and Tutty, M.G., (2012), A recent history of the evolution of Australia’s
Aerodynamics Store Separations capability – through indigenous and international programs,
28th ICAS 2012, Brisbane, Australia
53. Hudson, M., and Charlton, E., (2007), Many uses of CFD in JSF Store Separation, XIV
International Aircraft Stores Compatibility Symposium, April 13, 2007. Endnotes:
i Unknown at the time was that this would be the last external ACFD Challenge, well at least, so far. ii Aircraft Stores Configuration. An aircraft stores configuration refers to an aerospace platform,
incorporating a stores management system(s), combined with specific suspension equipment and aircraft
store(s) loaded on the aircraft in a specific pattern. An aircraft stores configuration also includes any
downloads from that specific pattern resulting from the release of the store(s) in an authorised
employment or jettison sequence(s) All definitions are from MIL-HDBK-1763, unless noted otherwise. iii Aircraft Stores Compatibility. The ability of each element of specified aircraft stores configuration(s) to
coexist without unacceptable effects on the physical, aerodynamic, structural, electrical, electromagnetic,
optical or functional characteristics of each other under specified ground and flight conditions. iv
It can also be argued that depending on the novelty / technology readiness level (TRL) of the ‘new’ aircraft
or ‘new’ store i.e. the degree of analogy basis - that the second or third situation may actually need to be
reversed. Store performance/integrity and unique (but undiscovered) aircraft characteristics/environment can increase/decrease the risks between these two scenarios. This may be
the case for any complex adaptive system and aircraft using active separation control techniques. v Analogy. A form of reasoning in which similarities are inferred from a similarity of two or more things in
certain particulars. Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, decision making, perception,
memory skills, creativity, explanation, emotion, and communication. [12] vi
Aircraft Stores Clearance. Primarily a systems engineering activity used in most Five Eyes and NATO
countries to formally document in a Flight Clearance, or similar document, the extent of aircraft stores
compatibility within specified ground and flight operating envelopes determined by the Technical
Airworthiness Authority [typically at the Engagement and System of Systems (SoS) level]. Aircraft Stores Compatibility Flight Clearance. A document issued by the Technical Airworthiness
Authority that explicitly defines the extent of aircraft stores compatibility to safely prepare, load, carry,
employ and/or jettison specific aircraft stores configurations within specified ground and flight operating
envelopes. This document is a mandatory basis required by most NATO nations for release to service of
the aircraft stores configurations. [12] vii The following definitions are proposed by the author for future SoS & FoS use in Joint Fires operations:
• Ops Category A – mission and safety critical operations. • Ops Category B – mission critical – safety affected operations. • Ops Category C – mission affected/advisory – ‘non-safety critical’ operations. Such a taxonomy closely aligns with the systems, SoS and FoS views and the three V&V implications
levels as proposed at Tutty (2015 Table 6.1). This is vital to delineate those SoS and FoS that are
OPS CAT A and safety critical, complex and adaptive in nature versus OPS CAT C engineered systems. viii
Click the image to follow the the Internet: network enabled operations! link to